Martin Weidner et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 22, 2021

2020000341 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/581,813 12/23/2014 Martin Weidner 54874-079001US 1038
64280 7590 04/22/2021
Mintz Levin/SAP
Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
EXAMINER
SAMARA, HUSAM TURKI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2161
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/22/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com
IPFileroombos@mintz.com
mintzdocketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARTIN WEIDNER, JONATHAN DEES, and
PETER SANDERS
____________________

Appeal 2020-000341
Application 14/581,813
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, and 15–18 (all pending
claims). Non-Final Act. 2. Claims 2, 8, 14, and 19 are cancelled. Appeal
Br. 26–32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest is SAP SE. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000341
Application 14/581,813

2
We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 (reproduced in-part) is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter (emphasis, formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. A non-transitory computer program product comprising a machine-
readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at
least one programmable processor, cause the at least one
programmable processor to perform operations comprising:
[A.] performing a top-k aggregation operation on data stored
across a cluster of processing nodes, the data including a
plurality of values,
[i.] the top-k aggregation operation being performed to
identify a subset of values in the plurality of values,
the subset of values including a k quantity of values,
each of the k quantity of values being greater than
values from the plurality of values that are not
included in the subset of values,
[ii.] the cluster of processing nodes comprising a plurality
of computing systems associated with a database,
each processing node in the cluster of processing
nodes being responsible for a range of keys
from a group of keys,
the range of keys corresponding to a subset of
data stored at each processing node, and
[iii.] the performance of the top-k aggregation operation
comprising:
[a.] receiving, from each processing node, an
approximation of each of a plurality of partial
aggregation function results for data distributed
across the cluster of processing nodes,
[(i)] the approximation of each of the
plurality of partial aggregation function
Appeal 2020-000341
Application 14/581,813

3
results comprising a lesser quantity of
bits than a full value of each of the
plurality of partial aggregation function
results,
. . .
[d.] returning a result comprising the k quantity of
values, the result being determined based on the
full value for each of the plurality of top-k
candidates.
REFERENCES2
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Bhashyam US 6,618,729 B1 Sept. 9, 2003
He US 2011/0213801 A1 Sept. 1, 2011
George US 2012/0191699 A1 July 26, 2012
Plimpton et al.; MapReduce in MPI for Large-scale Graph
Algorithms; 29 Nov 2010 version to appear in special issue of Parallel
Computing in 2011 (“Plimpton” hereinafter).

REJECTIONS
A.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 7, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of He and George. Non-Final Act.
3–13.

2 All citations are by reference to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-000341
Application 14/581,813

4
We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1
are dispositive as to this rejection. Therefore, except for our ultimate
decision, we do not address the merits of the § 103 rejection of claims 7 and
13 further herein.
B.
The Examiner rejects claims 3–6, 9–12, and 15–18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over He and George in various combinations
with Bhashyam and Plimpton. Non-Final Act. 13–24.
The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to
these rejections. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not
address the merits of the § 103 rejections of claims 3–6, 9–12, and 15–18
further herein.

OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. Appellant’s contentions we discuss
are dispositive as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore, Appellant’s other
contentions are not discussed in detail herein.
A.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner determines:
The combination of He, and George further teaches:
• receiving, from each processing node, an
approximation of each of a plurality of partial
aggregation function results for data distributed across
the cluster of processing nodes" the approximation of
each of the plurality of partial aggregation function
results comprising a lesser quantity of bits than a full
Appeal 2020-000341
Application 14/581,813

5
value of each of the plurality of partial aggregation
function results, the approximation of each of the
plurality of partial aggregation function results being
based on an offset shared by the group of keys for data
records in the database (see George, Paragraph
[0013], “generating intermediate results concurrently
in or closer to data storage nodes and reducing the
network data flooding by distributing only the reduced
intermediate results across the network.”).
Non-Final Act. 5.
B.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[N]either reference disclose or suggest the transfer of some but
not all of the bits representative of the partial aggregation
function result from each processing node to enable the
determination of a global k-th highest lower bound.
Appeal Br. 19–20 (emphasis added).
C.
In response to this argument, the Examiner does not discuss “bits” and
instead determines:
He teaches using a lower bound in order to determine the top-k
candidates, and as mentioned above, reducing intermediate
results in order to optimize the top-k operation.
Ans. 4.
D.
In further argument, Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
He still fails to disclose each processing node sending an
approximation of the partial aggregation function result at each
processing node that includes a fewer number of bits than the full
value of the partial aggregation function result. . . . George also
Appeal 2020-000341
Application 14/581,813

6
fails to disclose and suggest the transfer of some but not all of
the bits representative of the partial aggregation function result
from each processing node to enable the determination of a
global k-th highest lower bound.
Reply Br. 8; see He ¶45, George ¶10.
E.
As articulated by the Federal Circuit, the Examiner’s burden of
proving non-patentability is by a preponderance of the evidence. See In re
Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (“preponderance of the
evidence is the standard that must be met by the PTO in making rejections”).
“A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis[.]” In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the
initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . .
resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to
supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id. We conclude the Examiner’s
analysis fails to meet this standard because the rejection does not adequately
explain the reason to combine the references. See Non-Final Act. 3–7.
We agree with Appellant that Examiner does not provide a sufficient
reasoned explanation having rational underpinning showing how the cited
references teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious “the approximation of
each of the plurality of partial aggregation function results comprising a
lesser quantity of bits than a full value of each of the plurality of partial
aggregation function results” (emphasis added), as required by claim 1.
Non-Final Act. 5 (citing George ¶ 13). We conclude, consistent with
Appellant’s argument, that there is currently insufficient articulated
reasoning to support the Examiner’s determination that the references render
claim 1 obvious.
Appeal 2020-000341
Application 14/581,813

7
Therefore, we conclude that there is insufficient articulated reasoning
to support the Examiner’s final conclusion that claim 1 would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s
invention.
CONCLUSION
The Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, and 15–18 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3–7, 9–13, and 15–18 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 7, 13 103 He, George 1, 7, 13
3, 4, 6, 9,
10, 12, 15,
16, 18
103 He, George, Bhashyam 3, 4, 6, 9,
10, 12, 15,
16, 18
5, 11, 17 103 He, George, Plimpton 5, 11, 17
Overall
Outcome

1, 3–7, 9–
13, 15–18

REVERSED